[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1373-1374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-516]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

[A-588-807]

 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; 
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or 
Uncured, From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
reviews.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 4, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts and 
components thereof, whether cured or uncured (industrial belts), from 
Japan. These reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter and the periods 
June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 and June 1, 1992 through May 31, 
1993.
    We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have not changed the margins from those presented in our preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Vannatta or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 4, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 58839) the preliminary results of its 1991-92 and 1992-
93 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on industrial 
belts from Japan (June 14, 1989, 54 FR 25314, amended August 4, 1989, 
54 FR 32104). The Department has now completed these reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Tariff Act).

Scope of the Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of industrial belts 
and components and parts thereof, whether cured or uncured, from Japan. 
These products include V-belts, synchronous belts, and other industrial 
belts, in part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and containing textile 
fiber (including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and 
whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in belting in lengths 
or links. These reviews exclude conveyor belts and automotive belts, as 
well as front engine drive belts found on equipment powered by internal 
combustion engines, including trucks, tractors, buses, and lift trucks.
    During the periods of review the merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56, 
3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11, 
4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.91.50, 4010.99.11, 4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, 
4010.99.50, 5910.00.10 5910.00.90, and 7326.20.00. The HTS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive.
    These reviews cover one Japanese manufacturer and exporter of 
industrial belts to the United States, Mitsuboshi Belting Limited 
(MBL), and the periods June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992, and June 1, 
1992 through May 31, 1993.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary results of these administrative reviews. We received 
a case brief from MBL, and a rebuttal brief from the petitioner, Gates 
Rubber Company. We did not receive a request for a hearing.
    Comment: MBL acknowledges that the Department's resort to best 
information available (BIA) is authorized under section 776(c) of the 
Tariff Act, since MBL did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire.
    MBL argues, however, that the Department should use information 
obtained in the first administrative review (1989-90) as BIA instead of 
the rate from the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. 
MBL contends that the Department is required to consider the most 
recent information available in deciding upon a BIA rate. According to 
MBL, the information provided by the respondent in the first 
administrative review is the most probative evidence of the current 
margin because the LTFV margin was based solely on information provided 
by the petitioner for the period October 1986 through March 1988.
    Furthermore, MBL argues that it could not make an informed decision 
to reply to the questionnaires. MBL claims that since the Department 
has not completed the 1990-91 review before distributing questionnaires 
for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 reviews, the Department cannot infer that 
MBL would have responded to these questionnaires if it believed the 
margins for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 reviews would be lower. Therefore, 
MBL claims that the Department's conduct in this case is punitive.
    Finally, MBL points out that the International Trade Commission's 
affirmative injury determination is being appealed at the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). MBL urges the Department not to 
assess antidumping duties and order liquidation of their entries in a 
review where the validity of the underlying order is in question.
    Gates argues that the Department should not change its preliminary 
decision to resort to the LTFV margin from the original investigation 
as BIA. Gates states that MBL has provided no authority for the 
proposition that the Department should use as BIA the margin from the 
preliminary results in the 1989-90 administrative review. Gates 
contends that knowledge of results of prior reviews is irrelevant. 
Gates submits that MBL knew it might receive the highest rate, and that 
it would have submitted information proving lower margins if it could. 
Finally, Gates asserts that there is no justification for delaying 
completion of the reviews.
    Department's Position: Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act requires us 
to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable 
to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form 
required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' In 
deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations provide that 
the Department may take into account whether a party refuses to provide 
information requested (19 CFR 353.37(b)). MBL's contention that the 
Department should use the information obtained in the 1989-90 
administrative review is contrary to Department policy. When a 
respondent refuses to cooperate with the Department, it is our policy 
to assign as a dumping margin to that respondent, as BIA, the higher 
of: (1) The highest rate found for any firm in the original LTFV 
investigation or previous administrative review, or (2) the highest 
rate found in the current review (Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France et al, Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360, 28379 
(June 24, 1992)). The Department's methodology for assigning BIA has 
been upheld by the CAFC (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United 
States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United 
States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Because MBL refused to respond to 
the Department's questionnaire, it was reasonable for the Department to 
assign to MBL, as BIA, a rate of 93.16 percent, the highest rate found 
for any firm in the original LTFV investigation. Furthermore, because 
the law does not provide for extensions of deadlines pending the 
outcome of court decisions in other proceedings, we have not delayed 
our final results.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of these administrative reviews, the Department 
determines that a dumping margin of 93.16 percent exists for MBL for 
the periods June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 and June 1, 1992 through 
May 31, 1993.
    The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
    (1) For subject merchandise exported by Mitsuboshi Belting Ltd., a 
cash deposit of 93.16 percent;
    (2) For subject merchandise exported by manufacturers not covered 
in these reviews but covered in previous reviews or in the original 
LTFV investigation, a cash deposit based on the most recently published 
rate in a final result or determination for which the manufacturer or 
exporter received a company-specific rate;
    (3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior 
review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
    (4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 93.16 percent, the ``all other'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation, as discussed below.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul 
Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-
83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a 
company it can only be changed through an administrative review. The 
Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions, 
it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with 
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-516 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M